ArticleScientific reports2021
Individual and collective foraging in autonomous search agents with human intervention.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual social information use in collective foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Heterogeneous foraging swarms can be better.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans and other complex organisms exhibit intelligent behaviors as individual agents and as groups of coordinated agents. They can switch between independent and collective modes of behavior, and flexible switching can be advantageous for adapting to ongoing changes in conditions. In the present study, we investigated the flexibility between independent and collective modes of behavior in a simulated social foraging task designed to benefit from both modes: distancing among ten foraging agents promoted faster detection of resources, whereas flocking promoted faster consumption. There was a tradeoff between faster detection versus faster consumption, but both factors contributed to foraging success. Results showed that group foraging performance among simulated agents was enhanced by loose coupling that balanced distancing and flocking among agents and enabled them to fluidly switch among a variety of groupings. We also examined the effects of more sophisticated cognitive capacities by studying how human players improve performance when they control one of the search agents. Results showed that human intervention further enhanced group performance with loosely coupled agents, and human foragers performed better when coordinating with loosely coupled agents. Humans players adapted their balance of independent versus collective search modes in response to the dynamics of simulated agents, thereby demonstrating the importance of adaptive flexibility in social foraging.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.